Iran: Uranium Deal or Stalling Method?

Via Realite EU

Today, Iran apparently agreed to ship 1200 kg of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey while receiving fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium to use in a medical research reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes for cancer treatment in return. The deal, which was reached in negotiations with Brazil and Turkey, aims at depriving Iran of enough stocks of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. [1]

Experts say the agreement may allow Tehran to avert new rounds of UN sanctions. In January, 2010 Iran rejected key parts of a similar uranium exchange deal that had been agreed upon in Geneva in September, 2009.

After a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and signing the deal, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the permanent members of the UN Security Council (United States, Russia, China, France and Britain) plus Germany to resume the dialogue over Iran’s nuclear weapons development program. [2]

Global Reactions: US and Europeans are skeptical

The White House issued the following statement today: "We acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Turkey and Brazil. The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international community. Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns. While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20% enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Furthermore, the Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October." [3] 

European leaders were unconvinced that this deal was meaningful in allying concerns vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said the deal would not resolve core concerns: “[…] Let us not deceive ourselves, a solution to the (fuel) question, if it happens, would do nothing to settle the problem posed by the Iranian nuclear program.” [4]

The office of EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton in Brussels said the deal “does not answer all of the concerns” raised by Tehran’s nuclear weapons development program. [5]

A senior EU diplomat said the deal could not be considered a breakthrough unless it was fundamentally based on the fuel-swap proposal made by the IAEA in 2009. “If they [Iran] are accepting what was originally proposed by the IAEA back in October, then fine, some progress might be possible. But if this is some new suggestion that goes in a different direction, then it would appear to be stalling.” [6]

“Agreement postpones problem…not solves it”

It is not clear whether the terms of the deal would fully satisfy the demands of the UN Security Council. [7] François Géré, Research Director at the University of Paris III and founding President of IFAS (French Institute for Strategic Analysis) said that the agreement would only postpone the problem but not solve it. He further added: “[The deal] involves sending 1200 kg of 3.5% enriched uranium to Turkey, which corresponds to the total amount assessed in October 2009. Since then, the Iranians continued to enrich uranium and have well more than 1200 kg, which they agreed to send abroad. The agreement does not guarantee that each time Iran restores its uranium Iran will send it to Turkey. The country does not undertake any effort to stop its uranium enrichment activities. In six months from now, we could face the same situation as today and realize that there are tons of enriched uranium on Iranian soil.” [8]

Fuel deal versus Iran’s nuclear weapons development program

Western diplomats are concerned that Iran wants to create the impression that it was the fuel deal that was at the center of problems with the West rather than its nuclear ambitions as a whole. “The deal is not the reason why Tehran is in trouble. It is the whole nature of the Iranian nuclear program and its refusal to answer questions,” a Western diplomat said. Furthermore, Western diplomats argue that removing 1200 kg was less valuable because during the months of not complying with the original IAEA deal, Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile has almost doubled. [9]

The main difference from the initial UN-drafted deal is that if Iran does not receive the fuel rods within a year, Turkey will be required to “quickly and unconditionally” return the uranium to Iran. Iran feared that under the original IAEA deal, if a swap fell through, its uranium stock could be seized permanently. [10]

High-enriched uranium: A core problem

On February 9, 2010, Iran began enriching high-grade uranium, ignoring the threat of further UN sanctions. [11] Iran’s atomic energy chief said Iran would stop producing 20 percent enriched-enriched uranium if it received fuel from abroad. But in recent talks between Iran and the IAEA this idea was rejected. “If they refuse to stop enriching to 20 percent and make this proposal for fuel, then why are they continuing the higher enrichment? There is no other peaceful justification,” a Western diplomat said. [12]

No (real) change of heart

Shortly after signing the nuclear swap deal, Iran announced to continue its uranium enrichment activities, including production of 20 percent enriched uranium. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said: “There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities […] We will continue our 20 percent uranium enrichment work.” [13]

See:  Brazilian President To Visit Iran: Nuclear Program Tops Agenda from May 11,2010 and

Strengthening Turkish-Iran Relations Risk UN Sanctions Against the Islamic Republic from March 22, 2010

Experts list and references below the fold: 

Dr. Sami Al Faraj, (Kuwait)
President of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies
Tel: +965 974 2002
Email: kuwaitcss@yahoo

Dr. Matthias Küntzel Ph.D., (Germany)
Tel: +49 453 320 4533
Email: MatKuentzel@aol.com  
Website: http://matthiaskuentzel.de  

Simon Henderson (U.S.)
Baker fellow at The Washington Institute and director of the Institute's Gulf and Energy Policy Programme
Tel: +1 202-452-0650
Tel: +1 202-452-0650 ext. 344
Email: shenderson@washingtoninstitute.org

Mark Fitzpatrick , (U.S.)
Senior Fellow for Non-proliferation, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
Email: http://www.iiss.org/about-us/staffexpertise/list-experts-by-name/mark-fitzpatrick/contact-mark-fitzpatrick/
Website: http://www.iiss.org/  

Dr. Victor Mizin, (Russia)
Vice-President of the Moscow based Center for Strategic Assessments
Email: drvmizin@hotmail.com

Emanuele Ottolenghi, (Belgium)
European Foundation for Democracy (EFD)
Email: Emanuele@Ottolenghi.org 

---

Footnotes: 

[1] Dareini, Ali Akbar: “Iran to ship uranium to Turkey in nuclear deal,” Associated Press, May 17, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

[2] “Iran accepts nuclear-fuel swap deal,” AlJazeera, May 17, 2010, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201051755444737189.html

[3] "Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Iran," Press release, White House, May 17, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-iran

[4] Hafezi, Parisa; Exman, Fernando: “Iran agrees atom fuel deal with Turkey, Brazil,” Reuters, May 17, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64G18A20100517

[5] “European powers skeptical over Iran-Turkey-Brazil nuke deal,” Agence France Presse, May 17, 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3890824,00.html

[6] “Iran, Brazil, Turkey sign nuclear swap deal,” Reuters, May 17, 2010, http://www.politik.de/forum/mittelmeer/222849-iran-brazil-turkey-sign-nuclear-swap-deal.html

[7] “Iran accepts nuclear-fuel swap deal,” AlJazeera, May 17, 2010, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201051755444737189.html

[8] “[INTERVIEW] L’accord sur le nucléaire iranien “ne résout rien sur le fond”,” Le Temps réel, May 17, 2010, http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/opinion/20100517.OBS4073/interview-l-accord-sur-le-nucleaire-iranien-ne-resout-rien-sur-le-fond.html

[9] Westall, Sylvia: “Is new Iran nuclear swap deal a breakthrough?,” Reuters, May 17, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/aricle/idUSTRE64G2TP20100517

[10] Dareini, Ali Akbar: “Iran to ship uranium to Turkey in nuclear deal,” Associated Press, May 17, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

[11] Siddique, Haroon: “Iran begins enriching higher-grade uranium, says state TV,” The Guardian, February 9, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/09/iran-enrichment-higher-grade-uranium

[12] Westall, Sylvia: “Is new Iran nuclear swap deal a breakthrough?,” Reuters, May 17, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/aricle/idUSTRE64G2TP20100517

[13] “Iran says will continue 20 percent enrichment,” Reuters, May 17, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSHAF74478220100517

 

Comments

[Z]

I just saw this info, too, and it surprised me......looks like the weaker we show ourselves to be the more rogue states are moving the walnut shells on us..
This is about stalling...
Anybody who believes that Iran's not a much more serious threat than our gov't's telling us needs to have read Ken Timmerman 8 years or so ago.
Whatever happened to him, anyway?

[Debbie]

Z: Iran is good at stalling. They are also good at getting help. Think North Korea, Russia (who helped build their nuclear sites), Turkey, Syria.

On Syria, I hear they now have a promise to get their nuclear site(s) built.

I suppose Israel will have to take them out as they did the last one.